MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415378570 · doi:10.15173/glj.v16i2.6700

Book review Atzeni, M., Azzellini, D., Mezzadri, A., Moore, P., & Apitzsch, U. eds. (2023) Handbook of Research on the Global Political Economy of Work. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-83910-657-6. 704 pp. £241.20 (hardcov

2025· article· en· W4415378570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Beltrán Roca Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Labour Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarxist philosophyDisciplinePoliticsSocial movementInternational political economyNew political economyWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this handbook is bringing together different studies within the Marxist critical political economy to advance our understanding of changes in work and employment relations, including relations between multiple forms of work, exploitation, class structure, and workers’ collective action. One of the most outstanding features of the book is that it goes beyond disciplinary boundaries. It contains contributions from political economy, geography, sociology of work, social anthropology, development studies, social movement studies, and management. Another key characteristic of the book is that it includes empirical studies from a wide array of geographical contexts. Analysed cases focus on both the Global North and the Global South. In fact, North-South relations and the uneven geographical nature of capitalism, are part of the analytical interest of some chapters (something which is consistent with the explicit anti-colonial and decolonial agenda of the editors).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1180.098

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Labour JournalSame topicRegional resilience and developmentFrench-language works237,207